Khudayar Mohla
ISLAMABAD, (TLTP): Former army chief and President Pervaiz Musharraf on Monday challenged decision of the Special court that a Commission will record Musharraf statement from Dubai in high treason case.
Musharraf is facing high treason trial before a Special Court for imposing emergency in the country on Nov 3, 2007. The court has formed a Commission on October 15, to record former army chief statement under Section 342 of the code of criminal procedure who is currently residing in Dubai. Next date of hearing before the Special Court is fixed for November 14, 2018, in the matter.
Two days before the next hearing of the case, Barrister Salman Safdar, counsel for Musharraf has challenged the formation of Commission before Islamabad High Court, terming the recording of an accused statement in a case through a Commission from abroad ‘flagrant violation’ of the settled procedure Safdar expressed it as unprecedented.
“Establishing a Commission to record the statement of an accused under Section 342 CrPc is an unprecedented step, never undertaken in the legal history of Pakistan”, Musharraf submitted.
Barrister Safdar made a point that Commissions have been set up in the legal history of Pakistan to record statements of witnesses residing abroad but a Commission never been set to record statement of an accused in the past.
Substantiating his plea, Musharraf alleged that Special Court failed to hear Barrister Safdar over the legality of forming a Commission saying it is clear that the petitioner will not be given the opportunity to raise objection against the formation of the Commission in the current matter.
Referring formation of the Commission violation of the petitioner’s right, Pervaiz Musharraf said that formation of the Commission is also a violation of his right to the fair trial, protected under Article 10-A of the Constitution.
Petitioner’s counsel said, “Very purpose of the Section 342 CrPC is that the court would have to examine the accused because it is not just the content of an accused response that the court must consider forming its opinion, but also to form, delivery, and demeanor of the accused himself”.
Barrister Safdar was of the view that a forensic dialogue cannot be said to have taken place unless the court analyses the expressions, the tone of voice, pitch, inflections, and attitude of an accused whilst recording his statement. He further said,” consequently, it is necessary for the process under Section 342 CrPC to be conducted in the physical presence of the accused”.
Categories
Uncategorized
